Dismissed

Rushabh Builders v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010WP/1263/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Rushabh Builders seeking mandamus and injunction against the MCGM for utility of a plot under a redevelopment scheme. The court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the termination of the 2006 lease by the respondents, the writ petition is devoid of merit and not maintainable for contractual enforcement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rushabh Builders Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

wp-1263/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

srp

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1263 OF 2010.

¶7

M/s. Rushabh Builders. ..Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Another. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. G. S. Bhat for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b Mr. C. D. Shah for R-2. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for R-1.

¶9

Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : October 4^th 2010.

¶10

P. C. (Per R. V. More,J.) :

¶11

The petitioners have filed writ petition for following reliefs :

¶12

“a] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call the records and proceedings pursuant and the development of the suit property and after perusing the documents be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate orders in the nature of mandamus or order and be pleased to grant permission to the petitioners to start the development of the suit property.

¶13

b] For an order of permanent injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from granting any permission for the development of the suit property under the slum rehabilitation scheme without the consent of the petitioners

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

wp-1263/10

¶16

to the respondent no.2 or any one else.

¶17

c] That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent no.1 be restrained by an order of this Hon’ble Court granting any permission to the respondent no.2 or to any other developers for the development of the suit property under the slum rehabilitation scheme without the consent of the petitioners.”

¶18

The land in dispute is Plot No. 334 of Sewree Wadala (North) Scheme No. 57. [for short “the suit property”]. The suit property was initially demised and let out to one Ashok Vasudeo Mulya and Mansi Narpar Veera by the Improvement Committee. Said Ashok and Mansee entered into a development agreement with the petitioner alongwith general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 7/12/1981. The petitioner itself contend that the grant of possession

¶19

was delayed and in the meanwhile the slum-dwellers encroached upon the suit property. The petitioner submitted proposal to the Executive Engineer, Building & Proposal Department of respondent no.1 for redevelopment of the suit property. Respondent no.2 also submitted proposal for redevelopment of the suit property through their Architect Joshi. The petitioner after getting knowledge of this fact, complained to respondent no.1 not to approve the said proposal

¶20

wp-1263/10

¶21

-: 3 :-

¶22

of respondent no.2. By the letter dated 4/10/2005, the 1^st respondent informed Mansee–original lessee that hutment-dwellers have formed Vithoba Rukmini Co-operative Housing Society (proposed) and more than 70% of the occupants on the suit property have given consent to the said society to redevelop the suit property under D.C.Regulation 33(7). By the said letter, respondent no.1 asked the lessee to show cause within 15 days as to why lease should not be cancelled. Respondent no.1 thereafter by issuance of letter dated 22/5/2006 to Ashok and Mansee revoked, cancelled and terminated the agreement of lease. In this petition, the petitioner has not challenged the termination of lease in the year 2006. In the absence of any challenge to the termination of lease, either in this petition or by filing an independent suit, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the contractual obligations by filing a writ petition. We find that the petition is devoid of merits. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶23

(Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)

¶24

(R.V. More, J.)

Rushabh Builders v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rushabh Builders v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shilajadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbak Rao Pratinidhi and Othrs

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shailjadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbakrao Pratinidhi D.H. Trimbakrao @ Appasaheb Bhavanrao Pratinidhi an

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shailjadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbakrao Pratinidhi D.H. Trimbakrao @ Appasaheb Bhavanrao Pratinidhi an

St. Anthonys Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 9 Ors.

Naina Deepak Kamani Vs Janson Engineering and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mahesh Tukaram Vengurlekar and 2 Ors. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.